Ba Ga Phadima and Another v Premier: Northern Cape and Others (1050/16) [2019] ZANCHC 52 (4 October 2019)

Ba Ga Phadima and Another v Premier: Northern Cape and Others (1050/16) [2019] ZANCHC 52 (4 October 2019)

The court found that the fourth respondent's notice of motion and review application were irregular steps under Rule 30(2)(b) because they sought to review recommendations, not decisions, and failed to properly cite interested parties. The Commission's recommendations are not reviewable under Rule 53 as they do not constitute decisions. The Premier has locus standi as relief was sought against her in her official capacity and her powers derive from relevant legislation. The explanation for condonation was inadequate, failing to cover the entire period of delay or provide sufficient detail. The citation of the Moroni Family Representatives did not comply with Rule 17. Accordingly, the...

Citation
[2019] ZANCHC 52
Parties
Applicant: Batlharo Ba Ga Phadima; Applicant: Sephiri Isaac Dioka; Respondent: The Premier: Northern Cape; Respondent: Northern Cape Committee of the Commission Traditional Leaders Disputes and Claims; Respondent: Moroni Family Representatives; Respondent: Seaboy Lentshikang
Court
Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
4 October 2019
Case Number
1050/16
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Application for Irregular Step and Review; Counter Application
Outcome
Premier's application in terms of Rule 30(2)(b) succeeds; fourth respondent's counter-application is set aside with costs.
Judges
BM Pakati
Legal Topics
Irregular Proceedings, Locus Standi, Review of Administrative Action, Traditional Leadership Disputes, Citation of Parties
Civil Procedure Administrative Law Irregular Proceedings Locus Standi Review of Administrative Action Traditional Leadership Disputes Citation of Parties

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Batlharo Ba Ga Phadima

Applicant

Sephiri Isaac Dioka

Applicant

The Premier: Northern Cape

Respondent

Northern Cape Committee of the Commission Traditional Leaders Disputes and Claims

Respondent

Moroni Family Representatives

Respondent

Seaboy Lentshikang

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Application for Irregular Step and Review; Counter Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the fourth respondent's notice of motion and review application constitute irregular steps under Rule 30(2)(b).
  2. 2 Whether the Premier has locus standi in the review proceedings.
  3. 3 Whether the recommendations of the Commission are reviewable under Rule 53.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the fourth respondent's notice of motion and review application were irregular steps under Rule 30(2)(b) because they sought to review recommendations, not decisions, and failed to properly cite interested parties. The Commission's recommendations are not reviewable under Rule 53 as they do not constitute decisions. The Premier has locus standi as relief was sought against her in her official capacity and her powers derive from relevant legislation. The explanation for condonation was inadequate, failing to cover the entire period of delay or provide sufficient detail. The citation of the Moroni Family Representatives did not comply with Rule 17. Accordingly, the...

Court Disposition

Premier's application in terms of Rule 30(2)(b) succeeds; fourth respondent's counter-application is set aside with costs.

Orders

  • The fourth respondent's notice of motion issued and filed on 20 September 2017 is declared an irregular step and is set aside.
  • The fourth respondent's review application is declared an irregular step and is set aside.